On 21 Mar 2007 06:26:25 -0700, "rb608" wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote:
One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it
is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable
of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a
"theory".

If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything
within reason. This is also a simple fact.

Jumping in here without reading the entire thread, I may be
misinterpreting the context; but while what you say is mathematically
true enough, I have to disagree that there is a functional equivalence
when applied to fly fishing. First, I'll restate what I think you are
saying as a preamble. If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of
weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that
same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same
action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains. Does that
accurately restate your premise? If so, I'd offer that the logical
extreme of this is spin fishing: line weighs ~nothing, lure is heavy.
It doesn't violate your restatement of the obvious, but it sure isn't
fly fishing.

I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not
aware how many of you are simply stupid.

Perceiving stupidity among those whose means of expression are less
technical is an unfortunate condition afflicting many engineers.
Having read as much as I have of this discussion, however, I'm seeing
many of the same divergences that befall most long threads here. Once
the basic disagreement is established, parties continue to argue not
only their own points, but also in their own languages and paradigms,
all of which frequently differ from the original. I'd proffer that
when one party perceives the other as stupid, it is usually one's
failure to understand what they're saying as much as their failure to
understand you.

In this case, you seem intent on making the point and securing
agreement that casting 200 grains is casting 200 grains. I don't see
anybody here stupid enough to argue the mathematics and physics
therein. Some responders, less lateral thinkers, do not see the need
to agree on that point before moving on to other considerations such
as rod action or aerodynamics of the fly, which unless you are arguing
the equivalence of spin & fly casting, are undeniably relevent. That
doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them
stupid.

$.02,
Joe F.

What are you boy, some kind of troublemaker? Mike has spoken, the
sockpuppets have agreed, and that's that. It's now girllaw.

HTH,
R